<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2017 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'The main stove burner is broken.',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="general">
	<h2>General news</h2>
	<p>
		Google decided to hassle me again and locked up my account.
		At first, they demanded that I tell them what city I usually log in from.
		How should I know that?
		$a[Tor] routes my connection through cities all over the world.
		I have no way to know what city Google thinks I&apos;m logging in from at any given time.
		I tried telling them the only city that I actually am ever in when I log in, but of course they thought that was wrong.
		The only other option was to reset the account.
		Again.
		Frustrated, I started that process, which as usual, began with their demanding I tell them what month and year I created the account.
		Why would I even know that?
		Why would anyone keep track of when they created their accounts?
		I started looking through my journal to find the answer, as it should be in there.
		Before I could find it though, I remembered how I got that information last time: my email archive!
		Google sent me an email as soon as I opened the account, and I archive all emails from that account.
		Emails are of course dated, so I had the information right there on my hard drive.
		After providing the date, the reset was finished.
		This time, they didn&apos;t require a manual review, nor did they require a password change.
		This time wasn&apos;t as bad as usual, but I&apos;m <strong>*really*</strong> fed up with Google&apos;s garbage.
		I&apos;ll probably continue to try to keep this account operational, but if they lock me out for good, I&apos;m not creating a new one this time; I&apos;ll just be done with Google and my mother can find some non-telephone way to reach me.
	</p>
	<p>
		I just tried using the stove here for the first time.
		The main burner doesn&apos;t seem to work at all, though the other front burner does.
		I&apos;ll probably test the other two as I need to cook other meals.
		If I hadn&apos;t been stuck at my mother&apos;s place during the first two weeks due to my mother choosing a stupid limited data plan, I&apos;d have been able to include that information in my assessment of the place.
		Hopefully, I won&apos;t get blamed for the broken burner when I move out.
	</p>
	<p>
		My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="university">
	<h2>University life</h2>
	<p>
		I finished up my <a href="/en/coursework/PHIL1404/Artificial_value.xhtml">essay</a> for the week, then completed my initial discussion post:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Any time you&apos;re hiring people of a specific, not-directly-related-to-the-job class of people, I think you&apos;re treating people as a means instead of an end.
			It&apos;s arguable that there&apos;s an exception for things that people choose to be.
			For example, young, attractive men as Studio 54 did wouldn&apos;t be right, as it excludes women and unattractive people of both sexes.
			Hiring an all attractive-and-male serving force isn&apos;t the same as hiring an all miniature horse-racing team.
			In the former case, you&apos;re exploiting people for a particular images, while in the latter, you&apos;re looking for employees that can perform the job well.
			However, being muscular is a choice; one chooses to put in the effort to maintain a strong and healthy body.
			It&apos;s not as objectionable, therefore, to hire muscular people of both sexes.
			Another reason that it&apos;s clear Studio 54 was treating their employees as tools instead of as people is that they drugged them.
			There&apos;s no indication this was done without their knowledge, but presumably, they&apos;d be fired if they didn&apos;t comply and take the drugs.
			It&apos;s unknown if the employees were fine with the effects the drugs had on themselves, including both the intended effects and the side effects.
			This puts the employees in a difficult situation: risk almost certainly being let go or allow themselves to be drugged.
			As the drugs were illegal, this puts them in a second difficult situation as well.
			If caught, there could be harsh legal penalties.
			Lastly, the low pay of the employees, on top of everything else, shows once more that they&apos;re being exploited as tools to be used up and thrown away, not treated as valuable assets or as family.
		</p>
		<p>
			It&apos;s hard to say what Studio 54 thought of their customers, but I doubt that they were just fleecing them for their money.
			Anyone was welcome as long as they were interesting, which means that poor, interesting people were welcome and rich, boring people were not.
			It wasn&apos;t about money, or at least not mainly.
			It&apos;s probable that they were seen as participants in the project; in this case though, they didn&apos;t want boring project participants, which again, is plenty plausible.
		</p>
		<p>
			Transformational leadership is a leadership style that involves changing people&apos;s attitudes to make them devoted to the organization.
			Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is about including others through give and take.
			It seems like D&apos;Alessio and Studio 54 are more transactional.
			Anyone interesting is welcome, but if they&apos;re being converted to a single ideal, they&apos;re no longer interesting; they&apos;re like the rest of the group.
			Instead, Studio 54 wanted the input of interesting customers.
		</p>
		<p>
			Putting on a fake personality is putting on a fake personality, no matter why you choose to do it.
			Both in taking on a leadership persona and in trying to act cool for your friends on the weekend, you&apos;re trying to alter how others perceive you by pretending to be what you might not actually be.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		Next, I took the ungraded test.
		I was supposed to get a lot more coursework done today, but I just didn&apos;t.
		I feel like I&apos;m behind, but that&apos;s partly because I started the week behind.
		Getting moved took a lot of time and energy, so I don&apos;t have as much of either right now.
		I&apos;d better get everything finished up tomorrow though.
		Otherwise, I&apos;ll be starting next week behind as well.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
